wyomingsiouxfan Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Fargo Mayor: GF got millions after city 'failed' in '97 flood, while Fargo penalized for success Just caught this on the Herald's website. I was in elementary school in western ND in 1997 and I had never been in GF before. Our teachers constantly had TV's on in our classrooms showing the fight that the people in Grand Forks put up against that devasting disaster. Never for one minute did any of us think that the people of Grand Forks failed. Never for one minute did we think about not bringing clothes to school for kids who lost theirs in the flood. Never for one minute did we think about not donating canned foods and nonperishable items to people who lost the battle. I hope for Dennis Walaker's sake that he was misquoted when he said that Grand Forks failed. All it takes Mr. Mayor is one look at the pictures or video of the flood fight and quick trip through downtown Grand Forks and East Grand Forks to realized that the people of that region did one hell of a job. Don't call the people of the Grand Cities failures for the miraculous fight that they put up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jloos Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 This is the same guy who publicly stated the City of Fargo was at fault for a fatal car crash before any investigation had been done. The plaintiff's lawyers had to be salivating after hearing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm beginning to wonder about the elected officials in Fargo. (I do live in Fargo by the way.) I can't believe that the state representative didn't get absolutely butchered for publically stating after he signed the bill supporting the UND-ndsu game to be resumed, we all know that stupid bill that everyone thought was a waste. Anyways, I don't know his exact lingo but he says he didn't read what he was sponsoring before he signed it. What the fu**? How can an elected official making decisions for the state get away with this? And about this matter I am really disappointed in our mayor. I don't care what you think you cannot say someone failed after going through that natural disaster. Thats like saying Northwood failed this summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 But it was a failure. The city tried to keep the water back, but couldn't. They failed in their efforts. It was a heroic failure. It was a Charge of the Light Brigade/Last Stand of the 300/Remember the Alamo failure, but still a failure. Noting that takes nothing away from the efforts of those who tried to save the city back in '97. I was on the lines in Fargo in '97, and it's frustrating that we're facing the same thing now, while Grand Forks and Wahpeton are sitting safely behind their flood walls. (and I grew up in Wahp and parents and friends still live there) What Walaker says is true, if mainly being said out of the same sort of frustration. Fargo waited patiently for our turn because city leaders realized that the state couldn't fund more than one major flood control project at a time. These projects are so expensive that funding must come from the city, state, AND the feds. Without the state's share, Fargo can't afford it. (Neither could GF or Wahp.) Most of the frustration is of the "nothing could be done/railing against the fates" type, but some of it comes from the thought that the state could have funded the three projects more quickly than they did. If that had happened, Fargo might have had flood control in place a year or two ago instead of two or three years in the future with a potential massive flood looming on the horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soohockey15 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 But it was a failure. The city tried to keep the water back, but couldn't. They failed in their efforts. It was a heroic failure. It was a Charge of the Light Brigade/Last Stand of the 300/Remember the Alamo failure, but still a failure. Noting that takes nothing away from the efforts of those who tried to save the city back in '97. I was on the lines in Fargo in '97, and it's frustrating that we're facing the same thing now, while Grand Forks and Wahpeton are sitting safely behind their flood walls. (and I grew up in Wahp and parents and friends still live there) What Walaker says is true, if mainly being said out of the same sort of frustration. Fargo waited patiently for our turn because city leaders realized that the state couldn't fund more than one major flood control project at a time. These projects are so expensive that funding must come from the city, state, AND the feds. Without the state's share, Fargo can't afford it. (Neither could GF or Wahp.) Most of the frustration is of the "nothing could be done/railing against the fates" type, but some of it comes from the thought that the state could have funded the three projects more quickly than they did. If that had happened, Fargo might have had flood control in place a year or two ago instead of two or three years in the future with a potential massive flood looming on the horizon. Just like how New Orleanes failed during Hurricane Katrina, and Southeast Asia failed during the tsunami, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 But it was a failure. The city tried to keep the water back, but couldn't. They failed in their efforts. It was a heroic failure. It was a Charge of the Light Brigade/Last Stand of the 300/Remember the Alamo failure, but still a failure. Noting that takes nothing away from the efforts of those who tried to save the city back in '97. I was on the lines in Fargo in '97, and it's frustrating that we're facing the same thing now, while Grand Forks and Wahpeton are sitting safely behind their flood walls. (and I grew up in Wahp and parents and friends still live there) What Walaker says is true, if mainly being said out of the same sort of frustration. Fargo waited patiently for our turn because city leaders realized that the state couldn't fund more than one major flood control project at a time. These projects are so expensive that funding must come from the city, state, AND the feds. Without the state's share, Fargo can't afford it. (Neither could GF or Wahp.) Most of the frustration is of the "nothing could be done/railing against the fates" type, but some of it comes from the thought that the state could have funded the three projects more quickly than they did. If that had happened, Fargo might have had flood control in place a year or two ago instead of two or three years in the future with a potential massive flood looming on the horizon. I think we all know what Walaker probably meant, but the fact is that he said it in a very untactful manner, and he's going to justifiably get crucified in the media for it. He knew, or should have known how those comments would be perceived by a lot of people, and not just in Grand Forks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 But it was a failure. The city tried to keep the water back, but couldn't. They failed in their efforts. It was a heroic failure. It was a Charge of the Light Brigade/Last Stand of the 300/Remember the Alamo failure, but still a failure. Noting that takes nothing away from the efforts of those who tried to save the city back in '97. I was on the lines in Fargo in '97, and it's frustrating that we're facing the same thing now, while Grand Forks and Wahpeton are sitting safely behind their flood walls. (and I grew up in Wahp and parents and friends still live there) What Walaker says is true, if mainly being said out of the same sort of frustration. Fargo waited patiently for our turn because city leaders realized that the state couldn't fund more than one major flood control project at a time. These projects are so expensive that funding must come from the city, state, AND the feds. Without the state's share, Fargo can't afford it. (Neither could GF or Wahp.) Most of the frustration is of the "nothing could be done/railing against the fates" type, but some of it comes from the thought that the state could have funded the three projects more quickly than they did. If that had happened, Fargo might have had flood control in place a year or two ago instead of two or three years in the future with a potential massive flood looming on the horizon. So your comparing the amount/level of water GF got to the amount/level that Fargo got? Please explain to us how they were the same and how the elevations of the cities are comparable, etc. You did say that Fargo fought it off and Grand Forks couldn't, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Just like how New Orleanes failed during Hurricane Katrina, and Southeast Asia failed during the tsunami, right? New Orleans yes/no, SE Asia no. New Orleans had a system in place to stop the effects of the hurricane, but the people didn't stick around(rightfully so). The levee system failed in multiple points, but the general populous didn't try to stop the hurricane. There can't be failure(or success) if you're not trying to do something. The same goes for SE Asia or Northwood. In those cases, the natural event happened so quickly, there was no way to try to stop it(not that you could in any case). I hate the following phrase so much, I'm going to use it here. This is political correctness run amok. You can't use the correct(by definition) word for the event because it hurts someone's feelings. If the Sioux WBB team travels to UCONN and loses, are you upset if someone says they failed to win? Failure =/= something bad. It simply means you did not succeed in your attempt. Failing because you didn't give it your all is bad. Not learning lessons from your failure is bad. But trying your best for a worthy goal and failing because of a insurmountable obstacle is something to be celebrated. Being afraid to use the correct term for the situation sullies the efforts of those that fought for the city back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND-1 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 New Orleans yes/no, SE Asia no. New Orleans had a system in place to stop the effects of the hurricane, but the people didn't stick around(rightfully so). The levee system failed in multiple points, but the general populous didn't try to stop the hurricane. There can't be failure(or success) if you're not trying to do something. The same goes for SE Asia or Northwood. In those cases, the natural event happened so quickly, there was no way to try to stop it(not that you could in any case). I hate the following phrase so much, I'm going to use it here. This is political correctness run amok. You can't use the correct(by definition) word for the event because it hurts someone's feelings. If the Sioux WBB team travels to UCONN and loses, are you upset if someone says they failed to win? Failure =/= something bad. It simply means you did not succeed in your attempt. Failing because you didn't give it your all is bad. Not learning lessons from your failure is bad. But trying your best for a worthy goal and failing because of a insurmountable obstacle is something to be celebrated. Being afraid to use the correct term for the situation sullies the efforts of those that fought for the city back then. I understand your point. Another analogy would be a game of One on One. I will take on Andy Dick and you take on Shaq and lets see who can stop who from getting to the hole. I am betting on me. The point is 99% of people are going to take his statement of "failing" as a slam. That he is saying they could have stopped the water all by themselves if they had done something different, etc. Which is obviously not the case. He should know better than to phrase it like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 So your comparing the amount/level of water GF got to the amount/level that Fargo got? Please explain to us how they were the same and how the elevations of the cities are comparable, etc. You did say that Fargo fought it off and Grand Forks couldn't, right? No, Grand Forks never had a chance. There was no way to build temporary dikes strong enough to hold the water back in Grand Forks. Fargo was right on the edge. It could have gone either way here. We got lucky; a foot or two of water more, and we would have lost large parts of the city. But both cities tried to stop the water. It was the right call in both cases and both cities did everything right. In Fargo's case, the battle was winnable. In GF's case, it was not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 No, Grand Forks never had a chance. There was no way to build temporary dikes strong enough to hold the water back in Grand Forks. Fargo was right on the edge. It could have gone either way here. We got lucky; a foot or two of water more, and we would have lost large parts of the city. But both cities tried to stop the water. It was the right call in both cases and both cities did everything right. In Fargo's case, the battle was winnable. In GF's case, it was not. Agree, especially based on the NWS crest forecast. Fargo's 1997 flood was like two feet over the forecasted crest, while GF's final crest was five feet over the forecasted crest. If the forecasted crest for GF would have been 54 feet initially, the lower lying neighborhoods of the city would have been abandoned in a controlled manner, and a second line of dike defense built. The horrible forecast for GF made the two situations entirely different. Traditionally, the Red Lake River crests well after the Red River. In 1997, they both hit peak flows almost simultaneously, which was unprecedented. GF had to battle 110,000 cubic feet / sec, well over three times the amount of water Fargo faced (30,000 cfs). That said, I have heard Fargo acquaintances compliment themselves at "winning", and imply other remarks toward GF. Some of the strong responses to Walaker's comments on the GFHerald page suggests other GF residents have heard the same stuff from a small ignorant minority in the Gate City. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfhockey Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Get em star2city... someone told hammersmith off haha.... love it... wheres your facts at now hammer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Get em star2city... someone told hammersmith off haha.... love it... wheres your facts at now hammer? Actually, what Hammer wrote is accurate. Just the "fail" part is where I disagree. Can certainly understand why people took offense at Walaker's remarks, as many GF residents have heard the same words said in a purposely condescending or cruel way. Don't think Walaker meant it as such, but he used very poor word choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Agree about the choice of words. I don't think thats what he meant but it didn't come out sounding the best. I also don't think Hammer was far off in what he said and don't think star was trying to show him up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodakvindy Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Remember that Fargo's "victory" helped to contribute to Grand Forks' "failure". Likewise, the fact that Grand Forks got hammered probably saved Winnipeg. Now, the levees in GF and Wahp also mean that the state can focus pretty heavily on Fargo in this year's flood fight, rather than directing the National Guard and other resources to multiple fronts. The flood of 97 was a turning point in my life - leading me into my chosen profession. I've seen numerous disaster-stricken communities and to call either the city of Grand Forks, or its flood fight in 1997 a failure is utterly ridiculous. I don't know what Walacker possibly hoped to game by turning this into a zero sum game, that somehow helping Grand Forks (or any other community) hurts Fargo. At best it comes off as politically naive and at worst incredibly selfish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Just more GF envy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 No, Grand Forks never had a chance. There was no way to build temporary dikes strong enough to hold the water back in Grand Forks. Fargo was right on the edge. It could have gone either way here. We got lucky; a foot or two of water more, and we would have lost large parts of the city. But both cities tried to stop the water. It was the right call in both cases and both cities did everything right. In Fargo's case, the battle was winnable. In GF's case, it was not. in RETROSPECT it wasn't winnable but we fought like hell at the time! (mostly because we were dealing with SO MUCH MORE water 75 miles to the north - you idiot!) ANYONE who was there in GF in '97 KNOWS we all busted our balls to save our city and we couldn't....I hope you arrogant Fargo assholes NEVER feel the same pain we did because it's just too much. I hauled TONS of garbage and mud to the berm from my brothers/friends/neighbors garages...mostly all the "crap" YOU have in your basement right now...your childhood and hs memories, maybe your family photo albums or wedding stuff - pretty much ALL THE STUFF you don't need on a daily basis but want to keep because it's your own self/family history and you have to THROW IT OUT!!! If you haven't been through it? You have NO IDEA how devastating it is! Hopefully - Fargo's battle this spring having done very little in the 12 years since "barely" escaping '97 - their battle with poor flood protection will be "winnable" - if not? Fargo will get what it "deserves" much like "GF did", according to your moronic assessment, back in '97...good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05grad Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Wow take a step back people.... Both Fargo and Grand Forks are about to face another major flood fight that will need to involve the cooperation of a lot of volunteers, childish bickering will not help anyone. In 1997 both cities fought very hard to build temporary dikes with the purpose of holding the water back. The objective of a dike is to keep water out of peoples homes, when homes were lost, the dike 'failed 'plain and simple. Based on the laws of physics there is only so much water that can be held back by temporary dikes/levees. My family and I lived on the river in Fargo, we with the help of many people sandbagged and put up quite a fight, however we lost/'failed'. Some of our neighbors dikes were high enough, however they still lost their homes when thier basement floors imploded from the pressure of the vast amounts of water they were surrounded by. Sometimes no matter how hard you try there just isn't anything you can do. Most of Fargo got lucky, many homes/neighborhoods were spared by a matter of inches. In Grand Forks, many were not so lucky. The dike/levees in place failed to hold back the flood. GF had to deal with a lot more water (the river runs north, so all the water from that was in Fargo, plus all the snow melting/overland water north of Fargo will eventually end up in GF) but no one is saying that Grand Forks didn't fight as hard, or that they somehow 'deserved' to lose. That is absurd, I've lost a home and can tell you it is something that no one should ever have to go through. Pure and simple from a pratical/monetary standpoint there was much more damage done in GF, so at the time in order to rebuild (which the people of Grand Forks did a phenomenal job of, by the way) it was clear that a large, permanent solution was needed and so Federal and state money was spent in Grand Forks. Grand Forks built permanent flood protection, that was necessary and will now protect people and thier homes in many future years. There wasn't enough money at the time to do the same in Fargo, it is now becoming clear that these extreme floods are not a "one in a hundred, or one in five hundred year floods" and more permanent flood protection needs to be built in Fargo as well and that federal money will be needed to do so. Walaker (who if you remeber was in charge of public works and did a great job in the 1997 flood) was merely trying to point out the need for money to build long-term protection so that sandbagging (which doesn't always work, and costs a lot both in monetary and manpower terms) will not be needed every time the river rises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Fargo mayor had some interesting comments today about the national weather service predictions. Something about being upset that they keep raising it. I wish I had the quote but I was listening to the anchor person on the news. Let us not forget that GF had a 49' prediction in 1997 and that is what we built dikes to. I feel bad for the weather service because it's tough for them to win in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.